PREM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-1-211
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 29,2018

PREM CHANDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. - (1.) Heard the Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the following orders: (a) ORDER dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the extent it relates to confiscation of truck of the petitioner bearing number BR-01-H/8115 which has been confiscated in Confiscation Case No. 112 of 2000 under section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by its Bihar Amendment. (b) Appellate order dated 12.1.2001 (Annexure-8) passed in by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan by which the said authority has confirmed the order of the Divisional Forest Officer. (c) Revisional order dated 26.9.2002 (Annexure-9) passed in Revision case No. (C) 10 of 2002 by which the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi confirmed the order of Divisional Forest Officer as well as that of Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition.
(3.) The Counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged these orders on two grounds: (a) The Forester, who had seized the vehicle, had no jurisdiction for seizure in view of section 52(D) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended vide Bihar Amendment, and accordingly, the entire proceeding right from seizure of the vehicle is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly the order dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer which has been confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are sustainable in law. For this the Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment passed in WPC No. 4125 of 2001 as contained in Annexure-10 of the writ petition. (b) Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission the Counsel of the petitioner submits that otherwise also the authorities ought to have released the vehicle of the petitioner as the commercial vehicle of the petitioner was given on hire and was allegedly used for committing forest offence under the said Act without his knowledge or connivance and necessary precautions were taken against use of vehicle for commission of forest offence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.